What do you have!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by rwest

...If the offense can't manipulate the status shouldn't we deny the defense the same opportunity?

Devil's advocate position (meaning I like the ASA rule, but...): It is the responsibility of the defense to field a batted ball, any batted ball. It is the responsibility of the offense to run the bases and avoid the batted ball.

If the batter wants the batted ball to go foul, hit it foul!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by rwest

In all fairness Mike, I did mean she hit the ball again with the bat. But it doesn't matter. ASA says this is a foul ball. FED has it as an out if the umpire judges it could go fair.

Well, if I could read minds, I would probably be doing something else

However, have you never seen a player on their way toward 1B kick a ball in foul territory? I have, a few times, and the call was foul.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Devil's advocate position (meaning I like the ASA rule, but...): It is the responsibility of the defense to field a batted ball, any batted ball. It is the responsibility of the offense to run the bases and avoid the batted ball.

If the batter wants the batted ball to go foul, hit it foul!

So, with that logic, if it is hit fair, shouldn't the defense be required to attempt to field it instead of intentionally watching or coercing the ball to go foul. Remember Lenny Randle? How did that work for him?

And when it comes down to it, no one really knows if a ball "likely" to fair or foul will go fair or foul. I've seen many a ball allowed to roll the line looking as if the ball may be going foul only to have it not.

How about a slow roller? Is the umpire to borrow the stopwatch the base coach is now allowed to carry to time the speed of the ball, the likely distance that ball is to cover prior to coming to a stop and through a quick analysis of the landscape, the contour of the field and the rise in the seams and the rotation of the ball, determine whether the ball coulda, woulda, shoulda ended up in fair or foul territory?

Offer any opinion you want, I believe ASA's present interpretation offers consistency with the rest of the rules determining fair or foul (other than the foul line and foul pole actually being in fair territory crap). It also allows both sides to take advantage of a situation that apparently quite a few don't consider "fair play" when, IMO, it is exactly that.

Next thing you know, someone is going to suggest the umpire carry a level and check the ground every 10' along the lines to make sure there is no home cooking in the ground crew.


BTW, I'm still waiting to hear opinions about the runner on 3B contacting a bounding batted ball over foul territory that, IYO, could come back fair?

[ronald]

we have obviously, i assume, seen a ball that was foul going fair and the defense touched it foul knowing they could not get an out. so why can't the batter do the same thing with the roles switched.? foul going fair and will be an out. i imagine this is what asa is thinking.

does anyone try to see things from asa's point of view? I know ncaa thinks they know better than asa but do they?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ronald

we have obviously, i assume, seen a ball that was foul going fair and the defense touched it foul knowing they could not get an out. so why can't the batter do the same thing with the roles switched.? foul going fair and will be an out. i imagine this is what asa is thinking.

does anyone try to see things from asa's point of view? I know ncaa thinks they know better than asa but do they?

Too many, IMO, want to be punitive when someone does something they consider "unfair". There are people who call an out (INT) for every blocked ball by the offense, whether there is a play or not, as a matter of punishing the team for being out of the dugout or leaving bats/gloves in play.

It happens too often where people place preferences ahead of the rules. Ever see an umpire shrink a strike zone because a coach, parent or player is complaining? It isn't a good thing and reflects poorly on others.

Not an uncommon issue is when an umpire sees something they haven't seen before. Many will call it how they feel it should have been and then bend the rules to validate the call.

I don't think ASA means to be punitive in judgment, but to keep the field level. Pretty sure that is what most of us have been taught at one time or another.

[tcannizzo]

With the Subject "What do you have?" I gotta smile.
Just had to share this bit of Atlanta history at what is called the world's largest drive-in, The Varsity. Located right across the street from GA Tech.

http://youtu.be/gJD3_1k3rps

This guy keeps the line moving and is the ultimate definition of "fast food".
You don't see it in this clips, but there is a sign that says, "Have your order in your mind and your money in your hand."
Because when it is your turn, all you going to hear is Whaddya have....

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

BTW, I'm still waiting to hear opinions about the runner on 3B contacting a bounding batted ball over foul territory that, IYO, could come back fair?

By rule, this is nothing - I'm not arguing that.

But ... if I was the rules-writer, I would prefer this to be an out if it is INTENTIONALLY contacted in order to keep it foul, just as in the OP. The mind-reader argument is ridiculous ... this would not be the only time we are required to judge intent. I think we would all know it if we saw it (and I think that the vast majority of us would never see it).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

By rule, this is nothing - I'm not arguing that.

But ... if I was the rules-writer, I would prefer this to be an out if it is INTENTIONALLY contacted in order to keep it foul, just as in the OP. The mind-reader argument is ridiculous ... this would not be the only time we are required to judge intent. I think we would all know it if we saw it (and I think that the vast majority of us would never see it).

You might want to read the entire response to Mr. West. The mind-reading referred directly to the point he failed to mention the second hit was with a bat.

The play and the judgment here isn't the player's actions, but a presumption we can tell the direction and distance the ball will roll. You want to talk about "what if" and TWP?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...So, with that logic, if it is hit fair, shouldn't the defense be required to attempt to field it instead of intentionally watching or coercing the ball to go foul. Remember Lenny Randle? How did that work for him?

And when it comes down to it, no one really knows if a ball "likely" to fair or foul will go fair or foul. I've seen many a ball allowed to roll the line looking as if the ball may be going foul only to have it not.

How about a slow roller? Is the umpire to borrow the stopwatch the base coach is now allowed to carry to time the speed of the ball, the likely distance that ball is to cover prior to coming to a stop and through a quick analysis of the landscape, the contour of the field and the rise in the seams and the rotation of the ball, determine whether the ball coulda, woulda, shoulda ended up in fair or foul territory?

Offer any opinion you want, I believe ASA's present interpretation offers consistency with the rest of the rules determining fair or foul (other than the foul line and foul pole actually being in fair territory crap). It also allows both sides to take advantage of a situation that apparently quite a few don't consider "fair play" when, IMO, it is exactly that.

Next thing you know, someone is going to suggest the umpire carry a level and check the ground every 10' along the lines to make sure there is no home cooking in the ground crew.


BTW, I'm still waiting to hear opinions about the runner on 3B contacting a bounding batted ball over foul territory that, IYO, could come back fair?

My biggest problem with the Fed rule is the phrase "has a chance" to become fair. Really? "Has a chance?" I "have a chance" to win the lottery if I buy a ticket. So, this would say pretty much every time.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

My biggest problem with the Fed rule is the phrase "has a chance" to become fair. Really? "Has a chance?" I "have a chance" to win the lottery if I buy a ticket. So, this would say pretty much every time.

You have to buy a ticket!?!?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You have to buy a ticket!?!?

Buying a ticket doesn't significantly change your odds of winning.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by youngump

Buying a ticket doesn't significantly change your odds of winning.

You go from the probability of hitting 18 holes in one to the probability of hitting 18 holes in one minus .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

[MD Longhorn]

If you make a special trip to buy a lottery ticket, your odds (on average) are approximately 3 times greater that you will die in a car accident on the way to get your ticket (or back) than you are of winning the lottery.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by youngump

Buying a ticket doesn't significantly change your odds of winning.

I buy one ticket (per drawing).
I look at going from absolutely NO CHANCE of winning to a slight ( although very remote) chance of winning as significant.


I'll let you know....

[Dakota]

I used to live in Texas, and by my observation, there is one traffic law that is not in the driver's handbook, but is clearly in force... Pickups always have the right of way!

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

My biggest problem with the Fed rule is the phrase "has a chance" to become fair. Really? "Has a chance?" I "have a chance" to win the lottery if I buy a ticket. So, this would say pretty much every time.

Poor wording, I suppose.

But I have no problem with the intent of that wording. It basically means that if the umpires judge the ball was just about to enter fair territory when the offensive player touches it with clear intent to keep it foul, it's a violation. I seriously doubt they meant it to cover batted balls that have even the remotest chance of changing directions and eventually ending up fair.